AFL-CIO sues Homeland Security for wanting to check Social Security Numbers; Really Why would we want to make sure people are eligiable to work?

This is just ignorant on their part. If they are to support Americans, why do they involve themselves in actions supporting non-Americans. I had to delete my first comment as I put in the wrong initials, lol.

Why do you read the Washington Times? Read an unbiased paper -- if you did, you would have discovered that the suit was brought by the Chamber of Commerce and a number of trade organizations, and joined by the AFL-CIO. Is there something you don't like about the Chamber of Commerce?

Also, the "lawsuit" asks for a six-month delay because of the impact on the economy. Do you deny that this rule will have an impact on the economy?

The Chamber of Commerce says that this rule will create a "bureaucratic morass," similar to the delays that were created by the sudden creation of the new passport rules this summer. Is that what you want?

Elizabeth I read all kinds of papers. First of all the letters already go out. The additional requirement just makes employers take action in 90 days. They should of been doing that already. This is just to make sure the enforcement of law is happeing. What do you have Elizabeth against making sure workers can legally work here?

The only reason not to cooperate with SSN verification is to keep illegals in your employ at below average wages. That doesn't sound fair ir honest. This is not an issue about peace and love for your fellow man, it is all about money.
Can someone tell me what is a non biased newspaper? Don't mention the NY Times or the Washington Post.

First of all, it is "should HAVE".. not "should of". That is a pet peeve of mine. Second, you spend more time defending your SELF, rather than discuss the actual issue. Twice I have read your claims of reading, and yet still miss the mark. What others are telling you is that IT WON'T make a dent in the existing laws, or "the additional requirement". Bureaucracy, and more red tape makes this a joke! This Country has allowed illegal workers for decades and it's not about to change, especially in ninety days or over night. The entire "law suit", as has been pointed out to you here, is NOT about whether we allow illegal workers. It's about delays and clogging the system.. which will NOT get the job done. It is about the impact on the economy, as Elizabeth pointed out, and you ignored it. They asked for MORE TIME to get it together. You twist it to "what do you have against making sure workers can legall work here". You, MDP, are a walking strawman!

Here, James, this one claims to be "non biased".

With tongue in cheek I present you with,

http://www.goodnewsdaily.net/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=2


Good News Daily is a positive, non-political party biased, Christian newspaper reporting news based on facts rather than opinions. The two goals of this non-profit newspaper are to:
1) Biblically and prayerfully restore the United States of America to the way our founding fathers had intended it to be.
2) To teach the positive and loving message of Christianity all over the world.

I did address it there "news hound" The system is already in place. Now they want the employers to take ACTION. That will not clog the system. Enforcing laws will make it harder to emply Illegals making it good for this country. The issue is about Illegal Aliens, the AFL-CIO and similar organizations have been against the enforcement of these laws all along. Of course they try to spin it and I guess "News Hound" takes it hook, line, and sinker.

If a ss number doesnt match up, it should be reported, checked out and dealt with ,

This is a drop in the bucket, nay a drop in the ocean. It's purely symbolic and the Chamber of Commerce is correct - it will create a huge headache for businesses with no resulting action by the government. Just like Katrina. They claim to be doing something for the people - oh, billions and billions of dollars have been appropriated - but after 2 yrs, most of the people who qualify for the assistance haven't received a dime. They are totally useless.

I agree Vickey, It is funny those who do not respect immigration law will use an excuse to prevent enforcement of the law.

This is not enforcement of the law. Wake up. What is the worst that could happen? The illegals get fired, then move to another job where the employer has to go through the same process, they get fired, they move on...and on....

Think of it this way: your local police force catches a drug dealer and instead of arresting them, they take away the drugs in their possession and send them back out onto the streets. Is that good law enforcement? Honestly. This is a ploy by the BA to say that they are doing something and, if it's not working, it's not their fault - it's the fault of the employers! And you are buying it hook, line and sinker, MDP, as usual with much of the stuff the BA does.

Sheryl O.,

It is the fault of everyone. If they dont take action in 90 days they will be held responsible. It is a start, and even this weak start is being taken to court. What should happen is when the ss does not match, ICE should come and interview the worker and if they are indeed illegal deport them immediatly and place big fines on the employers. Can you imagine what the pro-illegal groups would do then. I will take small steps because that is usually what you get in this process.

Elizabeth, perhaps the NYT is less "biased"? And Sheryl, comparing enforcement of illegal immigrant laws is a far cry from the scams of Katrina (who John Edwards is one of the biggest scammers of all)

Good article and thanks for sharing.

I gave you an analogy -- which you conveniently ignored -- the passport delays this past summer. When employers are calling and screaming at Congress, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Labor for relief because they can't possibly comply, then maybe it won't just be a matter of "what do they have against making sure illegal workers can't work."

"ModernDay Publius", get over yourself. You aren't fooling me one bit.

"The issue is about Illegal Aliens, the AFL-CIO and similar organizations have been against the enforcement of these laws all along."

Oh, and I'll bet you're going to try to tell us the Republicans haven't been hiring illegals, have enforced these laws, never turning a blind eye and fought the "AFL-CIO and similar organizations", and yet, they look good on paper. Hahahahah! That's all it is, "ModernDay Publius", words on paper, meaningless words on paper, in an attempt to "look good".

On referendum H,

Opponents of the referendum argue it's an ineffective way to combat illegal immigration. One opponent is Douglas Bruce, a crusader for lower taxes and Republican El Paso County commissioner.

"Rewarding this failure of government with a tax increase makes no sense," Bruce wrote in comments for the state's Blue Book, an official analysis of ballot issues. The comments were not included in the book's final version.


More of your Republicans against illegal immigration. hahahah.

At issue are so-called "sanctuary" cities, places where city employees are not required to report illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Some, such as San Francisco, California, have declared themselves sanctuaries for refuges. Others, like New York, have never adopted the "sanctuary" moniker.

New York's policy, issued by Democratic Mayor Ed Koch in 1988, is intended to make illegal immigrants feel they can report crimes, send their children to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported.

An estimated half-million illegal and undocumented immigrants live in New York City, and only a fraction are deported each year.

"What's the best thing to do about that?" Giuliani said in 1996. "Put them in a situation in which they keep children out of school? Put them in a situation in which they don't go to hospitals? Or put them in a situation in which they don't report crimes to the police?"

Giuliani went to court to preserve the policy, suing over a 1996 attempt by Congress to undo the city's protections. He lost, but current Mayor Mike Bloomberg issued a new, broader version of the policy that remains in effect.

In the presidential campaign, both Giulani and Romney, former governor of Massachusetts are talking tough on immigration, yet their records are not necessarily tough.

For example:

-Several illegal immigrants worked on Romney's lawn as employees of a lawn care company; Romney said he did not know the company had hired illegal workers.

-As mayor, Giuliani often spoke positively about illegal immigrants: "If you come here, and you work hard, and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city," he said in The New York Times in 1994.

-Both Romney and Giuliani spoke favorably of 2006 legislation that would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants; they opposed a similar bill this year. Neither bill has passed Congress.

Immigration inflames conservatives, who mainly vote Republican, in early-voting states like Iowa and South Carolina. Some believe illegal immigrants are straining schools and hospitals, lowering wages or taking jobs away from Americans or legal aliens.

In a speech on Tuesday, Giuliani repeated a pledge to track immigrants closely with tamperproof identity cards, bolster fencing and law enforcement at the border with Mexico and deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

Romney, inspecting border fencing and checkpoints Monday in San Diego, in California just north of Tijuana, Mexico, reiterated his plan to hire more Border Patrol agents, punish employers who hire illegal immigrants and cut federal dollars for sanctuary cities.

Romney blames "don't tell" policies, and Giuliani's support for them, for luring millions of illegal immigrants to the United States.

"New York City was the poster child for sanctuary cities in the country," Romney said last week in a campaign appearance.

Giuliani's response is that he cracked down on all crimes, including illegal immigration: "New York City had the least amount of illegality per capita of any major city in the country, and I brought that change about," he said in a campaign stop last week.

Also, his campaign accused Romney of hypocrisy, pointing out that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney did not try to punish three sanctuary cities in his own state.

"He had three sanctuary cities in his own state," longtime Giuliani aide Randy Mastro said. "The New York City program was very different. We had a system that protected public safety by encouraging aliens to come forward to the authorities to report crimes, and then required authorities to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of aliens who committed crimes."

Romney says he tried to curtail the problem by deputizing state police to enforce federal immigration laws.

"It was exactly in response to the fact that immigration laws were not being enforced," spokesman Kevin Madden said. "It was also in conjunction with his believe that enforcement has to be a joint state and federal effort."

Bloomberg, who might run for president himself, waded into the dispute this week. Asked Monday about the idea of New York as a sanctuary for immigrants, he said, "Let 'em come."

"I can't think of any laboratory that shows better why you need a stream of immigrants than New York City," he added. "I don't know what to tell anybody. If they don't believe that immigrants add a heck of a lot more than they cost, they just aren't looking at the numbers."

MD - there is nothing wrong with using this process, but it is a very small part of what the government should be doing. Also, like someone pointed out above, it is doomed to failure if it is not set up properly (i.e., giving businesses time to implement) and safeguards are not put into place that provide the employee with some safety - these could be abused by unscrupulous employers to clear people out who are not illegals. The passport debacle is a perfect example of what happens when the government mandates something without having the necessary processes and personnel in place to support it - but it certainly looked like they were doing something good to the public, didn't it?

Elizabeth on the passport issue. Yes, there were delays in the new system as they were temporary in more people getting passports than before. That was a problem. they should have seen that coming. I think this is much different because these letters already are going out. There is not much more workload. The new requirment make employers take action in 90 days to remedy the letter not just ignore it. I see nothing wrong with that.

Newshound-

I agree that some Republicans could care less about Illegal Immigration. I do I have a concen. I do not support Romeny or Giuliani for the Nomination. Romney came up with a good health care plan that respected the constitution and Giuliani wants to simplify the tax code. Both good things, but I see too many negatives for both those canidates.

Sheryl O,

I dont disagree with you about time and setting up, but these groups will fight no matter what they propose and try to implement. That is the issue with me.

You don't get it. NONE of them care about illegal immigration, except what they can put on paper. Would you like me to flood your article with proof of this?

News Hound not everyone does not care about Illegal Immigration it is that thought process that makes everyone apatheic about the polticial process. Who gave you the authority to speak for everyone anyway?

I never speak for everyone. I can back up what I say. You never do.

Well MDP I must agree.
Don't faint. :-)

I recieved my passport 2 weeks after I applied. I did expediate it, but still, I received my in only 2 weeks. My co-worker recieved hers after 4 weeks. She did not expediate hers.

We now have 20 million illegal aliens, most probably have jobs. Can we support this amount?
Can we support more, say 50 million or 100 million?
Because this planet has over 3 BILLION that really need to come here. When is it too much? When it affects YOUR job and YOUR family?

There are a portion of people in this country that do not need jobs, they are living off their investments. What do you think they are pushing for?

Don-

That great, I almost did. Its nice to agree with you on this one

How about if we just get down to the dollar and cents, and Sense. Modern I agree with the deportation aspect if illegals are found. I love it when I hear about the 4 percent national unemployment rate. Even if they did look at the numbers based on Jobless Americans how long can a person collect Unemployment? How long is a person considered unemployed if they are no longer concidered collecting unemployment? Its all a number game, and if you dont plug in all the veriables you can make it any number you want. Now, If you plug in all the United States Jobs that are filled by Overseas outsourced workers (China, Mexico, Malaysia, Costa Rica, India) you might see why the unemployment levels are where they are. Why dont all who support the Illegal Imigration and Outsourcing tell your opinion to the people who are loosing there Jobs, Homes, Insurance, Cars to these people who are willing to undercut there jobs. Why dont you go and set at there table and put there shoes on and speak not out of ignorance but of what so many people here in America are dealing with on a daily basis. (WHO IS LOOKING OUT FOR THERE RIGHTS)? The biggest offender of what I speak are the Parisitic Bottom Feeders called Big Business. These people are so wealthy that they and the next 3 generations of there families put together couldn't spend all there money and that isn't enough for them. This is nothing but greed and our Big Business is the catalist that is looking to increase there bottom line by using people willing to take less to get it.
If we started grading our Politicians on there performance while in office and if they didn't at least score 80% of what the public was looking for (For Example Enviornmental issues, Illegal Imigration Issues, War Issues) they wouldn't be able to run again. I bet if it meant the difference between job security and not, they would get there collective heads out and fix the problems before them. It would mean they would look at what the majority of the public wanted instead of catering to the Big Business Lobbies and (NON CITIZENS). For all of you speaking against businesses monitoring SS numbers what would you do to fix the imigration problem? Give them Imunity?
News Hound,
Adding to the Numbers??? Lets talk about adding to the numbers. How about how Health insurance. It has increased to the point that most people cant afford it especialy those who are unemployed. How about the billions being spent by taxpayers to house the Illegals currently in Jail? How about the fact that they broke the law by entering Our country (Oh yeah, I bet your a product of the Anything Goes Generation) and now want imunity? How about the young girl (Illegal Imigrant with no Insurance) that walks into the Emergency room and says Im having a Baby? I guess you think its the hospital that eats that cost. All this, while our businesses are getting fatter on there labor and putting Americans out of work. There are many reasons I want to see the Illegals deported but one of the biggest ones is the lack of National Security a problem like this one makes. If we dont know who is here how do we make the people of this nation feel safe from terrorist attacks? Again what would you do to fix the problem?

Please pass this information/petition on to as many people as possible!!!

The American Worker Needs Your Help!

......"Be it resolved therefore that the undersigned respectfully urge America's leaders to address the crisis facing American workers and commit to preserving American jobs for Americans; enforcing effective sanctions against employers hiring illegal aliens; requiring employers to hire Americans first, making their own aspirations and dreams of a middle class life a reality."

http://americanworker.org

The information/petition that I posted above is mentioned in this article.............

Immigration fight turns to U.S. workers

By Stephen Dinan
September 3, 2007
The Washington Times

"Immigration-limits groups are in the midst of a Labor Day campaign to pressure Congress and presidential candidates to pledge to cut the flow of foreign labor in order to protect American workers.

The new ad campaign is stark and blunt: It features a young couple sitting at a kitchen table, with a baby crying in the background. The man tells the woman he didn't get a job because "they hired all foreign workers, but none of us," and the woman wonders aloud how they are going to make their house payment.

The group behind the ad, the Coalition for the Future American Worker, says there are 54 million Americans of working age without a job, and nearly 28 million foreign-born workers — both legal immigrants and illegal aliens — who hold jobs here. The group plans to deliver a petition to all of the 2008 presidential candidates tied to Labor Day asking them to crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens, but also to require businesses to look at American workers first, rather than legal foreign workers.

As of yesterday morning, about 76,600 people had attached their names online to the petition."

Cont'd through link.........

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070903/NATION/109030053/1001